Political Public Radio

Here is a link to the March 27th show that you can stream online. You can also share the link with your friends, family, or anyone else who may be interested. Check it out here.

Why Are We Responsible For Everyone Else???

Last time our class met we had a debate regarding World Affairs. There were two sides to our arguments. One was, Why are we waisting our money and troops and supplies to help out everyone else when we are already in debt? The second was, If we are the leading nation, why shouldn't we help everyone else out, what we send to help nations like Africa is so minimal compared to what we spend on everything else.
Personally I took the side of, we might as well help them out. We spend less than 1% of our money on world affairs. Why shouldn't we help out countries like Africa if we are able to? That is what makes the United States a leading nation. I'm not saying by all means to send a thousand troops in and start a war, but I do think it is okay to continue sending aid and a few troops to help out.
The latest world affairs issue that has gotten everyone in an uproar is the Kony issue and sending 100 troops to Africa. According to Fox News a senior administration official downplayed the notion that the armed troops could be drawn into a hostile, combat situation, saying the move was sparked by Congress passing a law year urging the administration to do something to crack down on the Lord's Resistance Army. So here is where the controversy started. Are we in the wrongs for risking our troops or are we doing the right thing? Unfortunantly that is an opinion and us students whether we agree or disagree don't make a difference either way. As for Obama, sounds like he is going to be sending more troops to South Sudon and who knows where else.

Panem Totalitarian Regime vs U.S. Democracy

Ok, so I think that all of us in class can come to a general consensus that having a government is a good thing.  A government, in some thinkers' words "protects us from our vices," "protects us from one another," or "protects us from ourselves."  They, in essence, feed and clothe us, etc.  Now, there are many many people in America who would whine and complain about our government and it's administration; many many many people.  I just have one thing to say to them:  Be glad that we live in a democracy where our government has limitations on what it can and can't do unlike that of Panem in Suzanne Collins' "The Hunger Games."  The Capitol, as it is commonly referenced in the novels, is a regime that sacrifices 23 youth from its various districts as a sort of way to say, "We can do whatever we want and you cannot stop it."  The Constitution of the United States of America prohibits things like this, thankfully.  The government of Panem is what would be classified as  totalitarian form of government.  The government can basically do whatever it wants, whenever it wants with no restrictions.  Who would want a government like that?  So, before you complain next time about something the government did or some new restriction they put on you, think about the awful governments you could have and our government will seem like a paradise.

Should books be banned?

          Many books are banned just on the basis of sexual content or racism. If these were the sole requirements for banning then many movies or TV shows need to be removed based on that. Books can also be challenged, which means they will be overlooked to see if it deserves to be on shelves of libraries. This happens a lot more often than banning and while a book is challenged it is removed for a short period, but then replaced back to its rightful spot on the shelves. The American Library Association has a list of the top 100 banned or challenged books and while reading it I was shocked at some of the books I saw:  Harry Potter, Of Mice and Men, Captain Underpants, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, Catcher in the Rye, To Kill a Mockingbird, The Giver, Beloved, The Face on the Milk Carton, The Things They Carried, Slaughterhouse-Five, A Time to Kill, Fahrenheit 451, The Lovely Bones, Friday Night Lights, and Goosebumps. These are just the books that I have read for school and some of them are just repulsive that you would want to ban them, I mean Goosebumps seriously. Since 1990 the American Library Association has seen over 9,000 requests to remove books from school shelves, which is a ridiculous number to me.

            Some of the books do have racism in them, but the time period they were written that is how the people spoke. This doesn’t make it any better, but it allows us to see how people used to live in the past. During school when we read The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn we would just skip the vulgar terms when it was read aloud. The word is still there, it just wasn’t spoken in school. I did not find any of these books offensive when we read them during school and I think that is more offensive to the authors to ban their books. What I find mildly humorous about this is the book Fahrenheit 451 is about books being outlawed and burned then it gets banned, irony?

            Some people think that some books need parental permission to read the books in school. This may work, but I could see it possibly back firing. I mean what would the parents really be sheltering their children from? By the time they would be reading most of the books many of the children have probably already heard those vulgar terms or sexual scenes on MTV or in a movie. I believe that at least with the books children learn something or some form of a lesson. I think that books shouldn’t be banned and that banning them is in fact banning a part of history. Our whole generation would not be the same if the Harry Potter books were banned. I don’t think any book should be banned and locked away; you have a choice to read it or not and I don’t think you should be allowed to make that choice for someone else.

Why is the United Nations Worthless?

As you might remember from last Friday, when there was a huge injustice in the world, I started to wonder about the United Nations. With the information given to me, I was pretty sure that the UN is worthless. After reading the little I have on the subject I have changed my mind a little, I am now all but positive they are worthless.

The United States should not be the world police. It not our place and we spend enough money the way it is. Why should we have the responsibility and the power. We shouldn’t. That responsibility should fall to the UN. According to their Wikipedia page, they have groups in place that have the titles you would expect from an extremely efficient and beneficially group on international problems. Some of these include the Security Council, International Court of Justice, International Criminal Court, and the Economic and Social Council.

I am not the only one who thinks the UN is pointless: the article "Why The United Nations is a Useless Failure" agrees with me too. If you are interested in this subject, I think this article would be a good place to start. The part I don’t agree with is his improbable solution because I think it is great. I want to see a special task force formed from ever country of the United Nations. I truly think there are many military people that would love to be a part of something like this. This group could rightfully be named the World Police, unlike the US who just acts like it. I don’t know the finer points of how it would all work out, but I don’t really see any problems with it. A specialized task force of 1000 highly trained military men working together with knowledge flowing in from every respectable country in the world sound like a great agency to me. They should be the people that find Cony. I personally think the UN should do something worthwhile or disband.

Should Hate Speech Be Limited?

            

               Should hate speech be limited? That’s a difficult question for many people. For many of our great- grandparents, grandparents, and even parents, hate speech was never an issue when they were growing up. Many of the issues that deal with hate speech today were either a part of life or not a part of life back then, such as racism or homosexuals. All of the hate speech issues were viewed in the same negative way so it wasn’t abnormal to speak out against them. While today, our grandparents and parents might still have a difficult time coping with African Americans, Muslims, or homosexuals, their kids are used to being around them and dealing with them on an everyday basis. Some kids might inherit their parent’s racism, but several I think have adapted to the idea that ‘those kinds of people’ are just like them.

               I don’t think hate speech should be limited. One of the main reasons I don’t think we should, or can limit hate speech, is because I don’t think, if a law forbidding it were passed, there is fair way to regulate what constitutes as hate speech and what doesn’t. The only way this law could be regulated would be if a person heard or saw someone else’s derogatory thoughts about another person or group. However, even if that did happen, it would be that persons own discernment of whether or not it was actually hate speech. Since people’s views are all different, you can see how this would be difficult to control at all. Also, as Fred Foldvary states in his article Should Hate Speech Be Banned?, if we eliminate hate speech, we’re eliminating something that is offensive towards someone else, not something that is physically harmful to them. He then brings up the point that offensive things are said all of the time so how can you distinguish one offensive thing from another? I agree. There is no physical harm being done here and I think if hate speech is limited, a lot of controversy will arise.   

               According to thestar.com in their article called How Free Should Hate Speech Be?, Amy Gutmann discusses how American and Canadian Political Scientists have met before to discuss whether or not there should be laws prohibiting hate speech. Canadian officials have already instituted hate speech laws which consist of “legal penalties against the willful promotion of hatred". Americans however are a bit concerned of whether or not letting the government place stipulations on our freedom of speech is a good idea. If we allow them in this case to limit our speech, what’s to stop them from taking it the next step further monitoring all of our speech?

               I think hate speech is a sad thing, but I don’t see any way to control it without taking away our first amendment rights. I don’t think we can ever fully get rid of hate speech, the only thing I would say we can do is to teach our kids respect and good morals so they grow up with a good conscience. Maybe then, they will show respect towards other individuals and hate speech will begin to diminish.

Is the Pledge of Allegiance Offensive?

Does the phrase ‘under God’ in the Pledge of Allegiance constitute government support of religion? I don’t think so. It is ridiculous to think that one phrase of the Pledge of Allegiance is supporting the collaboration of church and state. I think that people are looking way too far into two little words that are not meant to be offensive to anybody.

                I do see where the people who believe that this phrase is offensive are coming from. If you don’t believe in God, or believe in a different religion, you don’t want to announce that your nation is ‘under God’. But let’s face the facts; this country was founded on religion. If it were not for peoples’ intense belief in religion, none of us would be where we are today. So technically this nation was actually founded ‘under God’. It may not be the God that you believe in, but it is the God of the founders of this country.

                Honestly I think that there are much more important things to think about rather than the phrase ‘under God’ in the Pledge of Allegiance. We’re still in a ten year war! Anybody who makes a big deal of this is just trying to cause trouble. There is plenty of separation between church and state in this country. There are constantly cases being brought to the court’s attention in the matter of ‘the wall of separation’. This small phrase in our pledge is the least of our problems. If you don’t like the pledge, don’t say it. Nobody is forcing you to say the Pledge off Allegiance.

                The article “Under God in the Pledge” brought up a good point: state constitutions, currency, and the presidential oath already contain references to God. If we change our pledge, do we need to change all of those things too? Maybe it’s just me, but I think changing our entire currency would be a hassle just to make a small portion of people happy. I agree with Greg Katsas in the Huff Post when he says, “There is a religious aspect to saying "One nation under God," but it isn't like a prayer. When someone says the pledge, they're not praying to God, they're pledging allegiance to the country, the flag and the ideals of the country.” It’s true. Nobody is making an effort to offend others my stating our pledge. People are only trying to pledge allegiance to their country.

OH NO! You mixed Religion and Government Together!!

        Now let us go forth and open up that good old can of worms that is the debate of whether or not government and religion should be mixed. I believe that government and religion should be separate when it comes to dealing with politics.

        When it comes to religion, people can believe whatever they want. Which is all fine and dandy by me; I mean hey, it is in the Bill of Rights that we have the freedom to believe what we want. But the thing about religion is this, it is all faith-based. JamieRaskin stated that “the Constitution allows people to follow whichever religion they desire, but that government should make its decisions based on logic and science.” In a government, it does not really seem fair to all of its people if it based a decision on a certain faith it has in one type of religion. That would only favor a certain group of people, but if a government keeps its decisions based on logic, that pertains to everyone in a nation because everyone has logic. Government should be there to protect its people from harm through logic, not through religion and faith because in that light the government might favor certain groups, which then would not be equal treatment to all of the people of the nation.

        Let us now look down a different path in this debate. During presidential election, oh lets lay like the one that is coming up in the near future. Should religion be a factor in not voting for a very good potential president just because he has a religion that people do not agree on? MarkDaniels states, “I’ve never felt that Romney’s religion should preclude him from consideration for the presidency.” So hypothetically if Mitt Romney had all the answers and knew how to save America from debt and end world hunger, we all wish, would you not vote for him just because he is a Mormon? That to me makes absolutely no sense. If a candidate seems like he is the best fit to be in office and has great ideas for helping out America then in no way should religion play any role in him not being able to become President. I believe that religion and government should be separated, they both have there purposes but this is one Humpty Dumpty that should not be put back together.

Religion In The United States

            In the United States there has been an ongoing debate on how religion should play a role in government. Now, this is a hard topic to tackle, because in America we like get what we want. We want our food greasy, instant gratification, and our politicians religious. Not only do we as Americans want religious politicians, but  we prefer politicians of a certain sect from a religion.

            I feel that this should not be the case. If we truly want to be reasonable, we need to follow our founding fathers. They said that all religions should be treated equally. In fact, the majority of the founding fathers were not Christians; they were deists. Deism is a religion that believes in a supreme power. Who does not play a role in people’s lives.

Most even claimed to be ruled not by faith but by reason. Reading quote after quote it seems that the founding fathers thought religion was just a bad idea to have in politics. Johns Adams stated that, “this would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it.”  Thomas Jefferson said, “Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State."

Keeping all of this in mind, I feel like we really need to alter our thoughts of religion and government. The founding fathers knew of what they were saying. I know it is an enormous task to ask the people to alter their views; however I am simply asking for them to reason. Before you vote on a law or candidate, ask yourself why you are voting for them. Most people are so uninformed they vote based on simple things such as what religion the candidate is. This needs to change; we cannot have such prejudice in our country. It is ugly and unnecessary. We, as Americans, need to vote for candidates that will try to make a change to society in a way that is agreeable to us. Also, we need to broaden our knowledge of the people we are potentially putting in office.

Religious Discrimination in the Workplace

Have you ever wondered about the 20th century and how much has changed since then? I mean it was only twelve years ago but many things have changed in those years. Along with the many other things, religion was one of them. The many aspects of religion have changed within the workplace, home, and even politics. These days it has becomes a constant discussion when it comes to the workplace and more specific, hiring.
According to the Institutional Religious Freedom Alliance, faith-based organizations can use religious bias within their hiring standards. This is a huge controversy among many states because people shouldn't be biased against in any situation for any circumstance. This is one question that Sarah Posner brought to President Obama's attention according to Religion Dispatches. He has failed to answer or make any action on this. I think it is wrong to hire or not hire someone based anything about them but their qualifications.
Many institutions and businesses are allowed to hire/not hire people based on their religious preference. Maybe it's just because I am research hate crimes, but I believe that any discrimination at all (religion or not) promotes hate. I don't believe institutions should hold the right to discriminate against future hires based on something that isn't even that influential in our society today. However, the faith-based organizations actually have a validated reason on religion preference. I understand with that criteria since they will be working at an organization/institution that promotes religion; they should at least share the views that they are sharing/promoting.
With all of this considered, I believe that it is wrong to discriminate against anyone for any reason. No institution should have the right to hire their employees based on their religious views. If we were going to do that, we might as well go back to the 1800s with the racial bias back then. However, since religious views are the main criteria for a faith-based institution, I think that it is the one and only exception to this. No other reason would be validated. Next time you wonder about all of the many things that have changed, wonder to yourself, why indeed that they have been changed.

Political Public Radio - Episode 1

In case you missed the first episode of the radio show tonight, you can listen to it online here. Our hosts all did an excellent job!

Please feel free to share the link with anyone who may be interested.

I don't want to write a blog post...

I am sitting here in my dorm room on a Sunday night with absolutely nothing in my mind about politics, and I have an initial post that is due… at 9:00. WHAT SHOULD I DO!? I gave myself options: 1. Sacrifice my grade and be lazy for the night and don’t turn in any work for the assignment. 2. Get up off my butt, show initiative and think of something to write about. 3. Create a rant on how much I hate homework (even though it helps me) and make it sound political somehow 4. Type the word “politics” into Google search and see what pops up to write about, or 5. Use one of the articles that pops up on Google as my own and cheat my way through this assignment.

WAIT… what the flip!? You all are thinking… Did she really just admit to the thought of plagiarizing when she knew the teacher would read it!? Yes. I did. I have thought of plagiarizing more than once because I know that would mean someone else would do my homework for me and I could relax and watch the Walking Dead at 8:00 with my boyfriend. Because boyfriends and TV shows are WAY more important than learning. But every single time I think about this alarming act, I think to myself: My parents raised me better, and I know better. My parents would cringe if they found out that I turned in someone else’s work as my own. Partially because they know that I am perfectly capable to do the assignment if I just take the time.

Now, it is obvious I chose option number 3, if you didn’t realize by now, and here it goes. I think it is important for every child to have the opportunity to learn, but before that, I think it is more important for every child to be raised in a way that promotes a hard work ethic.

In the article, “TigerMothers: Raising Children The Chinese Way,” Maureen Corrigan writes about Amy Chua, who was raised the Chinese way married and then agreed with her husband that their child would also be raised in such a way, “in which punishingly hard work — enforced by parents — yields excellence; excellence, in turn, yields satisfaction” This is what Chua calls the “virtuous circle.”

Now, Corrigan, the author of the article, takes a look at her own life and her own daughter who had just given up on her homework and practiced her flute for 15 minutes and decided to sit down and watch TV. This is obviously an example of an American child.

It has been extremely hard for some American parents to even think of telling their child that they will burn their toys if they don’t play a piano composition perfectly, but I think some American parents can take something away from this story of Chua and her children. Chua explains, “In retrospect, these coaching suggestions seem a bit extreme, on the other hand, they were highly effective.”

Is there a way to encourage parents to promote hard work ethic and value of life beyond being perfect in everything you do and taking no time to relax? I feel like there are pros and cons to both the “Chinese” lifestyle and the “American” lifestyle. Every Asian person I have met here at UNK has proven to have a harder work ethic than I and yet they seem like they have a lot of fun as well. Why are American parents so lax in their parenting compared to the Chinese? And, second, is this why America is so scared they will become an inferior country in the future? And, third, is there a way for the government to help guide American parents of today to be more like a Chinese parent?

I think part of the reason I could not plagiarize this assignment is because my parents have raised me kind of like Chinese parents and kind of like American parents. In fact, at this age, I wish I had been raised more the Chinese way because I feel like if I had that background of getting all my work done, I wouldn’t have waited until 7:45 to start this assignment, and it would be natural for me to always get my work done. I’m not blaming my parents for my procrastination at all, but I feel like it’s harder to try and make a change now as opposed to when I had started kindergarten.

Do you need to go to college in order to succeed in America?

Is there a correlation between success, as defined by wealth, and education? There are many examples of people who either don’t have a formal education, or their success is in a field unrelated to the degree in which they majored. Take for example, Steve Jobs or Bill Gates, both men who were college dropouts, but became extremely successful. While people such as them are commended for their accomplishments, they don’t represent the majority of Americans. They are famous because they are a rarity.

According to the US Census Bureau, on average, earnings increase with educational levels. High school dropouts earned an average of $18,900, high school graduates earned an average of $25,900, and college graduates earned an average of $45,400. Thus, higher educational attainments resulted in steeper increases in salaries. Furthermore, those who never finish college would expect a lifetime’s earnings of $1.5 million, while those who did earn a bachelor’s would expect to make $0.6 million more. I think the numbers speak for themselves.

Although I firmly believe, as evidenced, that there is a direct correlation between education and success, I do not believe that it is the sole determinant of whether a person will be successful. Other key aspects to consider are personality, opportunity, and connections. In other words, while it’s not common for a person to be successful in the absence of a college education, it is possible. National Review Online relays countless stories of people who became quite successful without a college degree. In many instances the “knowledge and expertise” was “entirely a product of on the job training”.

One interesting point that these stories brought forth was the difference in methods of thinking between college graduates and non-college graduates. While college grads are good at memorizing and the like, they aren’t necessarily original thinkers. Can college “remove the creativity” required in the real-world? Similarly, college grads sometimes lack the hunger and drive to work relative to their non-grad counterparts. Can college inhibit the potential of an entrepreneurial type person? I think this is a curious point in regards to “the road less traveled”. I would be interested in reading up on it further to determine its validity.

In summary, I don’t believe that college is for everyone; some of us don’t learn to the extent of our capacity in such a structured environment. This doesn’t mean that such people won’t succeed elsewhere. Although education is needed for success, this doesn’t mean that education comes from the school environment. While many people do need college in order to succeed, it is possible to do without and be triumphant.

Money Speaks

Money is a very useful thing to have in our society. Companies spend billions of dollars each year to persuade us their products are the best thing ever invented. And guess what? It works. So if it works for private corporations, politicians think it will work for them too and it does. Like corporations trying to sell us their products, politicians are trying to sell themselves and their ideas.

Money plays a big role in the election process here in the United Sates. Millions of dollars are spent each election year by candidates to show Americans why they should vote for them. Without money, it would be very difficult for politicians to get their names and their ideas to the American people. Where do they get a lot of this money? Sometimes it depends on the candidate. Some people are born into wealth. Others, like Mitt Romney, are very successful business men or women. However, most of their money comes from donations from individuals or private corporations.

Pete Subkoviak, writer for the Huffington Post, believes that money in elections is one of the biggest problems in America. He states in an article that money has corrupted our Republic form of government. People get elected through private donations and promote the kind of legislation that their supporters would find favorable, not the people they are representing. He states, “Therefore no matter who wins the White House or the Congress in 2012, Washington's will continue to disregard the Citizen's interests because our electoral and governing system is fundamentally corrupted by private money.”

Is he right? Is our government really being corrupted by private influences through elections? Should we restrict how much an individual can donate? I haven’t quite decided on these issues yet. But I do know and see the impact money has on our elections. I do think it is ridiculous how much money candidates put into campaigns. However, should the government really step in and stop and individual from supporting a candidate who shares their same ideals? I know I personally want as little government in my life as possible. But have elections gotten that corrupt that we need to regulate private donations? I believe that a candidate who is truly well liked by the citizens and good for this nation will not need millions of dollars to convince people to vote for him or her. 

Why Don't College Students Vote

According to a study done by TuftsUniversity, eighty-eight percent of students who discuss politics and current events outside of class on a near-daily basis said they went to the polls on election day. That turnout, however, drops to 66 percent for those who discuss politics outside of class only a few times a month. Overall though, in the 2008 presidential election, only 51% of the population of college aged students (18-29) voted.  This was an increase from the 2004 presidential elections. That means that in the last two presidential elections, barely half of all college students in this nation voted.  That is crazy to think about.  Students could have much more influence on what happens if they would participate.  If a larger majority of students would vote, they could have enough say to impact which candidate wins.    So what is keeping the majority of students from voting?

As a college student, I plan to vote in the upcoming elections.  I want to be informed about each of the candidates and the policies they support.  However, like most students my age, I am extremely busy.  I have classes, sports, work, homework, and so many other random things that I have to get done.  Finding time to sit down and learn about each candidate is nearly impossible, and I do not feel that I should vote without knowing as much as I can about each candidate.  This leads me to believe that the lack of time and knowledge is one factor that keeps students from voting.

Another factor that might keep students from voting is overall laziness.  I hate to say it, but some students probably just don’t care to get to the polls. Or if they do care, they might be too lazy to actually go get it done. 

Yet another factor that might keep students from voting is the fact that many have gone to out of state colleges.  So how do you vote if you go to an out of state college?  That’s the point. You really can’t.  Many students who want to register to vote are turned away because they do not have a state driver’s license.  Others are turned away if it is found out that they paid out of state tuition.  If you lived close enough to your home town, you might be able to make a quick trip home to vote.  For those people that moved more than a state away that is not a very good option. Students need to vote.  Whatever is keeping them from voting, whether it be time, lack of knowledge, or anything else, they need to learn how to get past it and vote.  Students can make a difference and they are part of this country so they should have a say in what happens here.

Online Voting

For the most part, our generation is very informed about technology and we rely on it a lot of the time. There have been several advancements in the technology area and a lot of changes over the years. One issue that has been brought up for a while now is whether we should have online voting in the Presidential elections. I think that this would be a dangerous idea and that we shouldn’t progress in this area of technology.

According to the Washington Post, in October 2010, the D.C. Board of Elections wanted to see if an internet-based voting system would work. They opened up the system for a weeklong period and invited all computer hackers to attempt to get into the system. Within just a few days someone had already gotten into it. This example illustrates the dangers of having voting take place online in the future. The area of computer science is a growing field, and I think people will get more experience in computer systems and how to break into them. I don’t think we could ever make it 100% secure. Another concern I have with online voting is the fact that it is the “Worldwide Web”. Anyone from around the world could attack the American voting system and cause us problems in voting. There are other dangers of online voting, such as dependency. Avi Rubin of CNN stated,  "If you allow online voting and you're unable to detect any fraud, but it turns out later that many computers were compromised ... there's no way to audit or backtrack or recount or do anything to figure out what actually happened.” I think this is a very valid point that shows how unreliable the internet can be sometimes. 

With how often people are on their computers, I think that more of our generation would be willing to vote online. I agree that it would be a lot easier to hop on the computer and do it. However, part of me thinks that older individuals in our country would be against the online voting and wouldn’t want to change the way it’s always been. I think it makes more sense to be against it rather than for it just because of the safety reasons. Overall, I personally don't think online voting is the best idea and we should keeping doing what has worked for the past few centuries. I understand that America is trying to go green and utilize the technology we have and I’m supportive of these advancements, but some things are just better left unchanged.